This is SUCH an interesting interview, conducted thoughtfully, calmly and with deep insight. A caesarian section, discharged 24 hrs later, no assistance at home other than - hopefully - her husband! No wonder there is a steep rise in post partum depression and all manner of depressive conditions. This lady needs a wider audience.
I don't know if you've read her book but if you haven't, read it if you can, you're going to love it. One of the best feminist books i've read in many years...
Just had my second child end of last year, caesarean section, was discharged 24 hrs later, with only my husband to look after our first daughter. Thankfully, I gave over 5 years gap, so she was old enough to run some little errands. Isn't this the norm?😂
Treating childbirth on a par with having tonsils removed - ie out of hospital a day later - is nuts on every level. When one has tonsils removed, one doesn’t have a baby needing attention 24/7. Where I live, breastfeeding is decreasing because it doesn’t (usually) fit with the typical way we live now and so much bs is written about baby rearing.
The lying in period also enabled women to bond with their new-born and relax into breastfeeding without anxiety. I was born in 1963 and my Mum spent 2 weeks in a maternity home bonding with me, but also bonding with the other mothers. Important relationships were formed. By the time I had my daughter in the late 80s new Mum's were encouraged to leave after a few days, now of course it's often within a day
Absolutely, I so much relished the week I spent in hospital with both of my babies and also the fact that the nurses understood new mothers were exhausted and arranged things to take the pressure iff you a bit. They don't do that now.
My son and daughter were both born while I was living in Japan, and there they spent a week in hospital after giving birth, then the doctor asked her to come once a week to see that she was feeding properly and all was well. Japan has one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world, and though the birth rate is dropping radically there, it still 120m+ - yet they can achieve this. 'Motherhood' has a certain sanctity about it.
@@StephenSeabird The Idiocracy explained why Japan has a low birth rate. Most people are like the first couple, unsure about having kids in such an unstable economy. The Cleetuses and Trayyvon Jr's were wiped out by harsh ecology, or they did seppuku.
@@timthetiny7538 IT really depends on what you consider smart. If you're saying it isn't smart because you disagree, then there's nothing useful here for you at all. Because while she isn't as extreme as say Mary Harrington, she is still making the basic argument, 'well then, what do we do?' It's an open question. and I think in part vague for a good reason, because her target audience is those that .. really, really want to believe in feminism, but know deep down it's mostly bollocks. It's meant to open questions more than answer them. to make a somewhat milder case that, look the stats don't look good, and here's what has worked before. Whereas with Mary it's a much sharped in your face damning argument against feminism, and a stark turn away from anything that could be misconstrued and 'progressivism.' But basically bother Louise and Mary agree 99.5%, only at some of the more meta political stuff might they find themselves disagreeing. Loise's thrust is a logical takedown of the depravity of the sexual revolution, whatever good it may have done for freedom, it's come at a huge cost. Because without guardrails, some level of cohesive level of sanity beyond just 'consent' and 'live and let live' the science is proving this is going to destroy us. And she says it in a very cordial and comprehensive non-judgmental way. That ultimately, western man, you sit at a crossroads. And really the even more interesting part, is all the dark web has shifted this way, seeing the trees in the forest now. It's making sense, social media, screen time writ large, all technology unfettered by moral constraint is quite literally destroying humanity, if for no other reason than it's broadly distracting us from even breeding. But she makes much more polite points. And it can't be understated here I don't think that while her softer less critical approach is maybe not as informative, she is still nonetheless one of the few attempting to bridge that gap between the feminist view and traditional conservatism, but not implicitly for the same of 'being conservative' but because being honest that's where the adult road leads to when you supplement your world view with enough factual undergirdment. most leftists cannot engage even at this level, but some listening to Louise might. Far too much (most imho) of our world views are simply a difference of the boys and girls and how we process the world around us.
I find it reassuring that the likes of Louise Perry and Mary Harrington are both both feminists and visible in the public space. The arguments they make cannot be easily made by men. I don’t agree with all both say. I am less reactionary or conservative, but the secular argument for monogamous marriage being in the interests of children and mothers, acknowledgement of the psychological differences between men and women, and a recognition that there maybe wisdom from the past that has been lost that might make lives better for women (lying in and leaning on the female family and friends network) resonate strongly.
Children are only as expensive as you make them. You don't need the Gucci stuff, all the toys, you don't need the best oak crib--they're better off sleeping with parents anyway. The only way they might be expensive is in that one parents should stay home. Or else the tragedy of day care is that it costs a fortune almost making the second pay pack redundant, separates kids from parents, and make everyone in the household catch every illness.
But that is the way it is expensive for those just able to afford it, until circumstances change, like higher fuel prices, inflation, NET Zero policies, sanctions on a strategic supplier of materials, increasing population or a reduction in rented accommodation, etc.
A stay at home wife is not “expensive”. Generally the income that the wife makes isn’t worth the extra expenses and taxation. Economics aside, it’s FAR more expensive to pay strangers to raise your kids for you. It sacrifices your child, your relationship with them and society as a whole.
The main problem is that most people can't even afford to live in a house on one income anymore. So maybe if you don't want to send your kids to daycare you could raise them in a high-rise one-bedroom apartment, but that hardly seems ideal either. Daycare isn't so expensive that it equals the cost of losing a whole salary, at least not where I live.
It's refreshing for an interviewer to allow a guest to answer a question without interruption and they jointly explore the topic. More Marshalls and less Morgans I think 😊
These changes have all been driven by women and femunists! High taxes to pay for social security. No fault divorce. Hormonal birth control family court system Child abuse moral panics. Two income families. Hookup culture. #metoo etc etc Don't like the society women's complain g has wrought? Tell other complaining women to shut up!
@@davidadiwego4608 I think women are more open to social contagion. It's their strength (social aggression replaces physical aggression) and also one of their biggest weaknesses. Females often lean into hierarchy and popularity over truth, for survival reasons. This is why we need to break down and talk about toxic Femininity so women can manage this issue much better. Toxic Femininity - gossiping, shaming, defaming, passive aggression, trading compliments for compliance, focusing on how one looks to others in order to get what they want, and caring much less about how their authentic self and their accountability. Western women have been hugely infantalised and lied to by feminism imho.
I am gen X, most of my friends delayed starting families until their mid 30s. I think economics is a big part of that as it tended to happen a couple of years after getting on the property ladder,which was delayed by about 10 years on their parents. The baby bust will be followed a baby boom when pressure on property eases
Evidence from Germany,Italy, Japan, South Korea and other states suggests otherwise. The collapse in births has created a bottle neck. There are not enough young women to re-grow the population. At best they can stabilize, but even that is doubtful. Japanese real estate is dirt cheap, but the births per women keep declining.
In the developing world people have kids because they are insurance against old age. Once you think you can depend on the state (economically unsustainable) people don't have enough kids.
The question shouldn't be is having a child good or bad for the mom (or dad) its is it good for the child period. The idea of bringing someone into existence just because you are worried you'll be lonely when you're old is at its core selfish. Sorry thats all there is to it you are bringing someone into existence to suffer and die period. Its not even a matter of the climate or whatever it is existence itself and these conversations don't get to the bottom of the discussion. From any world view (religious or irreligious) it just doesn't make sense to bring people here
I think I agree with her overall viewpoint. Ultimately, it may well be the case that _most_ women, _in general_ would be happier and more fulfilled over their lifetimes with 2.1 children having lived as a stay at home parent, assuming a decent life partner, as opposed to having no children and a thriving career. Or, beyond the individual, a society where women predominantly have the former life would be happier, all else being equal. That's probably empirically testable, as are variations between those extremes. The trouble is that there is no social model without trade-offs, and these discussions always devolve into individuals foregrounding their own interests based on their own life experience, rather than contemplating other lives they could have lived, or what is true for the majority of people.
Marriage was made meaningless. You promise your wedding vows to be with the person in perpetuity, not until you get bored, or until someone else comes along, or you have a mid life crisis. The only significance marriage seems to have is women want to have "their" special day, splash a load of cash for "their" wedding day and social media and that's that. Making marriage cool isn't going to help with that. Now that we have no fault divorces since last year the issue is made a whole lot worse. Marriage is a source of stability for a woman marrying across or up social hierarchy as they overwhelmingly do, if they feel like a divorce they can go right ahead with no consequences for them but it's devastating for men, and for them marriage is a source of instability. Particularly when the rules of the game are continuously being rewritten. And also just making marriage cool seems to share a common trend with feminist solutions is that we can just socially engineer our way out of any problem. Just convince people with social media campaigns, protests, talking about the issue and their promised solution constantly and things will work out. As if that ever worked. As if that's not how we got in this mess we call modernity in the first place.
The first demographic transition (lower birth rates) was first seen in France in 18thC, rather than England, Germany or Netherlands which were more industrialised. It doesn't show in England till the about 1880. this suggests there was some other cause at work.
What a particular case of demographic study France is, right? Almost 30 million in the early 18th century. It took 200 years to finally double it. Definitely can't handle the military burdens it used to.
What a fantastic conversation! As always, Winston Marshall really, really listens. And Louise Perry is such an out of the box thinker. Her book is excellent. I cannot recommend it enough.
The awkward truth that is commonly ignored is that lesbians were a major force within feminism. And for gay women, a husband and kids are not top priorities.
Doubtful whether that was a major factor in how the feminist mindset developed. Something I find more likely is this; Traditionally, women controlled the domestic sphere, while men were in charge of the public sphere. And several hundret years ago, the domestic sphere was still a major force of society, comprising the majority of overall economic assets and a good chunk of social life. But over the last few centuries, this importance as continuously dropped, both due to social and technological developments, such as urbanisation and the increased outsourcing/mechanisation of traditional household chores. The stay-at-home wife has become irrelevant as a social entity, whereas it used to be an important position (even without children). And so, the less important their traditional sphere got, the more women asked to participate in the still-relevant one; The public/male sphere.
@@michaelt.5672 I think there were several factors that influenced the rise of feminism. But without doubt Lesbians represented a political aspect of feminism as they were, by nature, not invested in the traditional nature of 'family' and women's role in the home. "Indeed, lesbian feminists asserted that lesbians exemplified women’s liberation, demonstrating the personal, economic, and sexual independence that feminists believed all women should possess. That analysis helped provide insight into the way that society constructed its notion of womanhood, recognizing that lesbians conformed to many traits commonly construed as masculine."
It's still a problem even among radical feminists. I'm one of the very few heterosexual mothers in my local group of radical feminists. Often times it gets so anti men, antinatalist, pro separatist that it's almost aggressive towards women like myself so they stop organizing. It's hard to build anything meaningful that helps most women when the majority of the women haven't the same experiences of that majority. I was able to get a conversation going on the ways that Christianity served the needs of women and children very similar to what Louise talks about even though I'm not Christian. It was interesting that's for sure but takes alot of patience and energy. I hope it changes.
How is that an awkward truth? Lesbians advocated for themselves and their rights because they were stifled in a society that didn’t allow women financial or social independence. It’s not their fault that their ideas took hold and other women decided that maybe they would like a career and an independent life as well. Mothers need to advocate for themselves because no one else is going to do it for them.
@@patriciag6030 But that's not quite true is it? Cosmopolitan, for example, had an agenda to manipulate women into a version of the Sex and the City lifestyle. And the whole thing was a kind of psy-op plan to increase the labour market at the expense of the American family structure. I remember reading a piece by a former 1960s Cosmo journalist, she was happily married, living out in the sticks, and told by Helen Gurley Brown's editorial team to make up stories about living a wild swinging life with a glamorous job in the big city. And the template for that lifestyle was the kind of work/life existence some city dwelling lesbians were enjoying. So the whole thing was a fiction. And lesbian ideas didn't "take hold", a package of lies was sold to manipulate women to make bigger profits for corporations. I don't call that 'empowerment'.
On being childfree… she mentions it’s apparently good fun in your 30 but not in your 80. It’s not fun being 80 regardless of having kids or not. Getting to 80 for any given individual is not guaranteed. I have worked in elderly care and biological kids are often not even visiting the elderly… as they are busy with their own nuclear families… Having children on the expectation of being cared for when old is the one of the worst reasons for choosing parenthood and motherhood in particular given the enormous upfront labor and sacrifice you have to make… which… even with a healthy child last for decades 🤦♀️ Your body takes a huge hit… specially if you have more than one child… I mean you can die… finances often tank… partner support likewise I don’t see how she thinks this is possibly a good idea for an ordinary women??😮
"It is less psychologically damaging to children for one parent to die, than for their parents to divorce" Yes. No-fault divorce is perhaps the most insidious form of child abuse ever discovered.
@@wyleecoyotee4252 wrong. Me any my brothers have trauma following from our parents divorce even 17 years on. It has destroyed our whole family, and i know both of them regret it but will never talk to each other again.
I live in a multi generational household- its a money thing as I save up to be an 'adult'..(.in my late 30s) Unless youre super successful or a relationship expert, it's impossible to reach orbit by yourself.
OMG - “behave as other people behave” what great life advice!!!! Having children to look after you when you’re old is a very risky strategy. You’d be better off investing the money you save into a fund for your future nursing care
It's how societies in the past worked. A loving family tends to lead to children caring, when they grow up, about their parents. Grandparents where I come from, often help with parenting as well, when for example, the parents need a day out by themselves.
Really good ending!!! This is how you should argue ,with pro's and con's and admitting your short comings...In the Netherlands we have {had?} a system where some lady called a "kraam hulp" helped women after birth for 5 days, so the father could work or learn to help the mother...and of course grand ma helps! But I agree that that is not enough, we should acknowledge the importance of becoming a mother, it is not "just" giving birth!
In Indonesia, women have babies at home, then lie in for 6 months afterwards! They do not believe in taking the baby out of house for 6 months so that the family can bond and the baby can grow in a protected environment. Everyone in the family takes care of the mother & baby on the family compound. The other issue we have today is the belief that childbirth is hard or scary. We need to go back to embracing the fact that women are designed for birth and it’s the most empowering and spiritual experience of a woman’s life. Stay out of the hospital, have a midwife come to your home for birth. Prepare your body & mind BEFORE and during your pregnancy.
If I need a root canal, I don’t have people telling me to have it at home without pain relief. Why is there this insistence that women need suffer needlessly?! Pain relief is a miracle.
Surely it's all about WHO you marry? Getting married for old fashioned reasons like not wanting to get "left on the shelf" or fear of being alone is never going to help bring about a better life, but a wise choice of someone genuinely lovely who you're actually attracted to, and who has the same values and goals, could be life-enhancing.
Indigenous communities still operate under an extended family and families model, however in our own countries we're constantly ridiculed as being backward or stone age. But we are able to keep our birth rates much higher and as a result perform at higher than replacement.
One of the best recent interviews with Louise Perry. Good to see an interviewer who is young but nonetheless educated, who's done research but mostly lets her talk.
Very interesting interview. The crux comes at the end, when Winston says ‘basically you’re arguing for orthodox Christianity” - I feel this is what Louise Perry has been skirting around for a long while now. However she never wants to explicitly say it because she isn’t a Christian and doesn’t want to partake in it because it’ll make her change her life. But it’s the obvious answer to all the problems she lists in her book. It comes back to Nietzsche’s question on whether we can have Christian morality without God? - the answer is no we can’t. I think this is a grave error from Louise. She’s has such important points, but she needs to practice what she preaches for it to have any sort of resonance with the culture. She just simply points out these issues, whilst also partaking in the culture that perpetuates them. She’s completely abdicated any responsibility.
@costellocozier Costello. I’m treading deep waters here, but I think there is a great need for Christianity in the world for those who live in former Christian societies. Unfortunately the the Western Catholic Church, and to a greater extent theProtestant Church have done such a bad job people have find Christ on their own terms. A direct unmediated relationship based on more on Orthodox Christian ideas grounded in Christian meditation might characterise where I stand.
She mentions "evolutionary psychology", and it is in terms of selective evolutionary adaptation that we need to view norms and customs. Such norms take hold because they are more successful than other ways of doing things. Fertile tribes overcome infertile ones, for example. Of course, this all depends on circumstances and environment, but Louise and others like her are asking fundamental questions when one can now easily see that our societies are existentially threatened by low birth rate. These questions undermine everything we have believed over the past sixty years, and the absurdity of the most recent ideological excesses helps to bring it all to a time of reckoning.
Er ... this ought to be obvious, but I'll point it out just in case. One cannot DECIDE to believe in God (or anything else). One either believes in something, or one does not. And you could persuasively argue that the only reason Christianity took off the way it did (there being plenty of competing deities) was that it enjoined believers to follow a moral path that they instinctively recognised as good, both for the individual and for society. It certainly HELPS that Christianity's moral strictures are phrased as commands from on High, but it is far from clear that this is a prerequisite.
I agree..I was disappointed to hear she practices contraception. That's going to affect her marriage pretty negatively, as it affects the way couples see sex and in turn, themselves and their love for each other.
Fantastic interview, Louise. It will be interesting to see how this feminism contends with the dominant strand of third-wave, intersectional feminism over the next 5-10 years...
I don't think the issues you're talking about are anything to do with feminism. It's more to do with capitalism. Mothers have to work. It's very rare to be a stay at home parent unless you're fantastically wealthy or on benefits. The people in the middle simply can't afford that lifestyle.
So based, only thing a bit sus was Brian Henderson’s take that legalising drugs would impact the poor and vulnerable more when that’s exactly what happens now. Drugs are expensive and addicts steal to fund their habits and sometimes die due to the nature of being an unregulated substance with varying degrees of purity and adulteration. Maybe a middle ground like Switzerland should be taken but the current laws are awful, counterproductive and increase crime.
Maybe things are different in the UK, but in the U.S. affluent Americans have the highest rate of marriage and the lowest rate of divorce. So I don’t get why she thinks getting high status people to get married will change things. High status people already get married.
High status isn't always identified only as those who are affluent- high status here in the states are people like influencers, hollywood types,- these types here in the states are a terrible advertisement for marriage. And they're telling our society that women should not want marriage
VERY grateful for the early feminist movement, and I certainly winced at my first exposure to Ms. Perry. But these uncomfortable truths need to be heard and processed.
07:00 The other point about population decline is that, while it might be happening too slowly to avert the climate crisis (I'm not entirely sure I agree here - if we still had the global population growth rates seen in the mid 20th century, we'd be screwed. Population decline isn't sufficient, but it might be a precondition), it's happening rapidly enough to have massive economic consequences. I'm personally in favour of population decline, but on the level of maintaining a fertility rate of 1.8-2 for 500 years. The projected declines in East Asia, Eastern Europe, Italy...etc. (less so Western Europe and the US) are _scary_ . Geopolitics aside, the projected declines are rapid enough that its just going to be socio-economically destabilising.
if it really is such a crisis, it will cull billions of people. Those people are, more or less, the ones who couldn't survive in the 1st place without the industrialization/fossil fuel exploitation/eco system destruction that is causing the so called crisis.
Does this woman even like children? She seems to think going on holiday with them is a nightmare, sometimes talks about having children as if it's a pain in the arse but something you just get the benefits from later - as if this is a policy decision, not an action of love. Try going on holiday and seeing the world through a child's eyes. Nothing beats it.
“How do we make marriage cool again?”. Simple: Completely turn around family court law. Until family law is changed to stop screwing over men/fathers, marriage will continue to be completely off the cards for the modern man. This isn’t in women’s interests in my opinion (or seemingly Louise’s).
Marriage rates are even lower here in Sweden but the divorce process is very, very egalitarian here. No alimony even for women who have been stay at home mothers for long periods. Marriage is down because religious beliefs are down, not because of divorce laws or courts.
One more issue is being a " nowhere person" ie people being too mobile. I have two children but they both moved abroad ( which means grandchildren abroad too) I am now 70, have health issues cropping up and I am effectively alone !
All 3 types of greens described are likely to be wrong. The long arc of history shows that, in the end, only regulation can curb environmental harms. Oddly enough, restoring birth rates may require it too: policies encouraging more motherhood will be costly so no nation could afford to do it alone. In a globalized world, effective regulation requires robust global cooperation.
Motherhood to me can show remarkable empathy and resistance to conformity by challenging the perceptions of others. To understand the fundamental needs of others in any social group. Her bravery of clear thought and action. Her only enemy is vanity and jealousy which has also destroyed many men. To be confident in your own skin and know your talent is by far a better measure of a good person who does not need to betray or denigrate others. The almost inner strength of the mother is to liberate the spirit of life and combat prejudice and ignorance. God bless my mother for she was noble and capable as any human or any animal that retains instinct to know course of action which affects us all.
I’m Greek and it’s a traditional rule that we stay home and be looked after for the first 40 days I didn’t know this was a real practice in England too
"10 Global Trends Every Smart Person Should Know" is a vital read to understand modern day facts beyond the superficial headlines. It will change your view of the world
Women aren’t a monolith. How’s about letting each individual decide what they want for their lives and not dismissing those who don’t want a traditional setup.
We tried that. Too many have opted out of perpetuating the nation. Now, the nation itself (not the country, not the political and economic entity but the people group) is facing extinction. Oh but the country will be okay. Breeding of European citizens is increasingly being outsourced to Africa, India, etc to make up for the fact that European women are so unfertile that replacement rate hasn't been achieved for years. And now a male contraceptive pill is being developed too! The new Europeans are/will be much more traditional and patriarchal. Popular Women's-lib and contraception will fade away in Europe along with native Europeans themselves. At least a few generations of European women got to have a jolly good time indulging themselves and their egos. All's it cost was the European nations themselves.
These are my thoughts on growing up with women at university and the workforce for the last 35 years (20-55). Young women are taught from 15 that academic success and going to university are the route to financial freedom and fulfillment. This means women reach 30 with a career and financial independence so they go hypergamy searching for a higher status partner (ie. in a better situation than them) so they can have a children. Unfortunately these the high status men have many options so pick younger women who are more fertile and less assertive.
Motherhood is not supported by society and even despised by feminists. Marriage has also become taboo and looked down upon by modernists and younger generations. If marriage and motherhood had was presented in culture as an ideal, it would become more desirable to people who are so impressionable.
Nah men demonized motherhood. They told women they didn’t contribute to society, that being a mother was your only worth and the world would keep functioning if women disappeared. Husbands financially abused their wives and told them they were worthless
Because if nothing glamorous about it. It doesn't help that Society is not upfront and honest with the pros and cons. Reality smack the rose glasses off of me when I was 5. I truly thought my grandparents had a happy loving marriage just to find out that he try to abandon my grandmother with five kids.
A modern version of the lying in period, where extended family came to assist, (Which maybe they no longer can due to working,) would be staying at a after birth care center or having a afterbirth assistant in the home. It feels like a fairly accomplishable modern solution. It again creates differentiation in social standing, when it is not payed for by the government. But search youtube and you will find both solutions in practice in asia, particuarly afterbirth carecenters in South Korea at very varying costs. It seems common practice there, where I have not heard of it amongst my peers in the Nordic countries, but maybe it is a business model and cultural norm, just waiting to happen?
42:15 "luxury beliefs" - That's very interesting. You see it with Democrats lately who are immune to the policies they put into place - though lately some of their immigration policies do end up affecting them unless they are ultra-wealthy.
One big problem for childless women, or even couples is who comes round to help you and take care if you when you are old? I think the other big problem is the pressure on women to have a career, it's somewhat socially unacceptable to want to be a stay home mum, there are no rewards for doing that !
I thought I was on board with what Louise was saying but 45:01 is just top order nonsense that would cause me to question anything she says again. Of course you're better off with both parents still alive but divorced than one parent dead and anyone I know who lost a parent growing up would agree. It's a massive handicap on your development and it's ironic that she's coming off the back of citing Rob Henderson and luxury beliefs that she immediately says something so remarkably misguided from her privileged intellectual position.
Apropos South Korea's birthrate and ability to resist North Korea; wars won't be fought with large land armies in the future. Young working class in the West having children is condemning them to years of drudgery and little chance to accrue assets and thus a half decent life.
In good faith, I wished I could agree, but every time we say this there is always another war. The military industrial complex have a duty to their shareholders to generate ROI. in this case it means perpetuating war through lobbying Governments to spend on military equipment. Until we find a better form of capitalism I can’t see it ending. That is not to say that there hasn’t been a big increase in other forms of warfare. Warfare is now ‘multilateral; kinetic, social, political and technological.
@@peterweston1356 I suggest reading a history book now and again, plus some books on anthropology. If you think that war is a product of capitalism you must believe that capitalism started tens of thousands of years ago. There has never been an age or a society that was free from war. In fact, the world as a whole (and particularly Europe) has been less war-torn in the past 70 years or so than at any other time in history. Violence is endemic in all human societies, including stone-age groups in the Amazon, Papua New Guinea, and so on.
@@DieFlabbergast I wasn’t clear, sorry, I think since the sixties this new phenomenon, the military industrial complex is the first time we have a coherent ideological powerful institution accidentally engineered to maintain, war, war footing, and division in pursuit of material gain through the market place.
Its wrong to use national demographics.. use race demographics. White people maybe be reducing but Arabs etc are increasing.. think about the long term affects of this.. politically, language, education, religion and fanatical beliefs..
1st generation immigrants have loads of kids, but it slows down by the next generation. Those people know that family court is Russian roulette with 4 rounds loaded.
Yes there is a feminist case for marriage but when are people going to make the changes necessary for there to be a case for marriage being in the male interest? I suggest purge the new concept that conjugal rights/ duties are "rape", end alimony and let abandoning spouses take out of the marriage nothing they did not bring into it.
I have watched the first 15 minutes and hope to return to this later. I find Louise Perry to be interesting but I disagree with her on a lot of things. In particular her dismissal of the ecological concerns many of us have about bringing children into the world. For one thing I think it is responsible for me not to bring children into the world who will suffer a terrible fate. And then if the population dips it may not "solve" the problem of climate catastrophe, but it at least gives us more time to deal with it. I am not sure that anyone, least of all Louise Perry has the "solution" to this problem. New technology may be of help, but it needs time and time we are running out of. I also object to her dismissal of those who say they are not having children for ecological reasons. She cannot know what other people are thinking, it strikes me she is projecting her own opinions onto others. I also find it odd that Elon Musk is a "Bright Green". He is currently a Ron DeSantis supporter, a politician who denies climate change. If there is any ecological benefit to what he is doing, his motives are more to do with making himself rich rather than saving the planet.
Hi. I’m 10 minutes in but gotta go to sleep 🥱 I’m hoping they will chat about the fact that ENGLISH culture is dying out. What a shame. To identify as English these days, one runs the risk of being spat upon. English common law, starting with the Magna Carta in 1215, was a bastion of human rights and freedoms and has been used around the world as a great humane model. There are so many reasons why I’m proud to be English yet sad and a bit scared at the same time. St George was adopted as a symbol of the fight of good over evil. Long live England and St George! Haha! Tally ho!!! X 🏴
That's a rather different topic. I highly recommend Douglas Murray's numerous talks here on RU-vid and his books (e.g. "The War on the West" and "The Madness of Crowds") regarding this aspect. It's not immigrants who want to destroy English culture.
the birth rate depends very much on the chance of reaching adulthood. countries with more security (healthcare, Food security, wars, violent crime etc'). trying to calculate the number of ppl in 2100 in Korea without addressing the chance of those babies reaching adulthood is not very scientific.
I don't get the maths. A reproduction rate of .78 by 4 generations get's me 0.37%. If the North Korean population is now 50% that of the South Korean and stagnating, they will in no way be twice as much people, but 1.35 times, given a generation span of 25 years. For war, you don't just need soldiers, but weapons, munition, fuel and so on, and the SK economy is much more productive, than the NK one. So no chance here, for NK. And you have to make the assumption, that the numbers and the political situation will not change much over the next 100 years, which is not a good assumption to make.
Make people grow up faster - Nat service. Men who join the army get married and have children way younger than the Nat average, because they have to grow up faster!
9:10 "..I think the only way out at this point we're almost seven billion people on the planet almost 8 billion rather is technology.." Use your imagination what that means.
You don't have a kid for the reason for it to look after you when you are 80 plus.I didn't have children and if I did I would expect nothing back from them.
Most divorces are initiates by the woman but this is rarely mentioned. Children are denied a father but he loses his home and a large part of his income simply on his wife's say so and of course loses his relationship with his children. If we are striving for equality why does no one mention that if a man marries the mother of his children he is very likely to lose not just his children but his home and his income but if he doesn't show the commitment of marriage, his home and income are far more secure? The law demands that marriage is a lifetime obligation of his income but to the wife it is simply her quarantine of his/their home and income. What sort of equity of contract is that? Women don't seem to gain any more than men from divorce but men and their children lose by far the most. It's all mad. Only lawyers gain. What if we banned all divorce until children were at least 18 and if anyone left the marital home, they could not take anything except their clothes and would still be responsible for all the financial contributions they previously paid. Of course this includes the children. Neither husband nor wife could take the childre. These simple steps might reduce complete family break up. The most dangerous place for a child to be is in the company of their mothers next boyfriend.
Good call - many colleagues at work have been destroyed by divorce...men are learning that marriage and children are a risky proposition, if you want to be financially secure and still part of your family, as you get older.
China is eastern, poor, and autocratic, yet ending the one child law hasn't created a baby boom. The fatal flaw is that there is no incentive to reproduce in a dump of a country.
Lol, no one cares what rich people do unless it affects us! 😂😂😂 Not getting married in the working class has nothing to do with so-called luxury beliefs goofy. It's because being poor is stressful, especially with dependents. I can't believe folks are dumb enough to buy these obvious, uninformed opinions. 😂
Feminism should not be about turning women into men. It is about providing women with the opportunity to flourish and maximize their potential as women. I am so thankful for people like Louise Perry for pushing back on the notion that the only means to elevate women is to make them indistinguishable from men in terms of aspirations and mindset. Thank you for interviewing her.
The way to maximize the potential of women is to teach them from the time that they are little that they need to grow up and find a good husband to have a family with, not to start a career first and never get married and end up a frustrated single mother or lonely
I work in a retirement home: the amount of 80 year olds who live and die alone is staggering. Most of their children now have jobs and children of their own and can hardly come to visit. It is no longer true that you are accompanied by your children in old age. Just spend a couple of weeks with old people and you will see. Old age is very lonely for great many people whether you have children or not.
Having children is still better than nothing. Everyone's story is going to end differently. Having adult children who can check in and see if elder abuse is occurring is something at least. I hope more conversations happen around this topic.
@@louiseevaonthepathI also know at least one elderly person who was pushed out of her own home by her greedy son. There are 2 sides to this, and the point still stands that old age is shit for most people.
Agree with that, I’ve noticed a number of friends come from broken families, and they don’t talk to their parents (perhaps a few times a year at best). I’m from an Asian family and I speak to my mum twice a day and she visits regularly. I have no children, but I was never selfish enough to put my desire for children in front of what is best for children. I never met the person that shared the same values, and I wasn’t going to live a life not being respected. Everyone’s story is different as to why they don’t end up having children. Even if you do, you better hope your children respect and love you enough to check on how you are. Modern families are not like that from my observation.
She is spot on when she says that divorce is more disruptive than one of the parents dying. That acrimonious split is so destructive to the children, then they have to shuffle between two separate and often contentious worlds for their entire childhoods. It’s utter tragedy unfolding.
My parents divorced when i was 16. I am 33 now and honestly, it kind of gets even worse with time as you are reminded at every milestone that your parent's new relationships are more important to them now than your own children and neices etc. Considering divorcing my own parents to stop the emotional one sided demands of it all.
@@SamOwen55 that’s terrible, and sad. So much damage is done and the parents just want to move one with their lives. I often said during my divorce that it would have been far easier if he had died. He had to make me hate him because he couldn’t handle the guilt of his cheating. It’s been acrimonious ever since. Now he’s poisoned my own children against me, which happened over the years of undermining, and they are living without contact with their own mother now, all because it serves my ex husband’s ego better to have it that way, even though my children are suffering as a result. When they are as old as you, they’ll probably realise and it may be too late by then. If he had died, none of that screwing up would have happened. I wish I’d known how it would turn out when I was younger. I would not have had his children if I’d known I’d have to raise them on my own, in the face of him trying to make life as difficult as possible at every turn.
My father cheated on my mother and I was glad when he left. He was an alcoholic and treated my mom like dirt. At 15 years old, unbeknownst to me, I became a feminist. Never missed him at all. Finally peace at home.
As a person whose mother died when I was 4, I can say that it was bad, but that it affected the adults differently to me. They understood the long term, they had to rearrange their lives to care for me and baby brother. Throughout that time I had a stable and loving environment (we became that 3 generation family for a while) and I was repeatedly told about my wonderful mum and how proud she would be of me. Divorce is fracture with no real way of healing, sometimes. I know some people make it work, I know blended families can work too (I am part of one), but as an adult I can look back on the trouble my step brother had with his parents' divorce and being moved into my family and really appreciate how that was hard for him. He was very defensive of his Dad.
Open borders Globalisation has destroyed the family. My dad was a printer in the 70s and could afford a 3 bedroom semi detached in a nice suburb of London, a stay at home wife and 2 children. This banking and financial system has hollowed out the working class and will do the same to the middle class.
The Government and 'those in control' help push women into work allowing more taxes to be raised and pushing down wages for all. So all those feminists that are praised for helping women - not really the true story. Then the creation of the pill allows women to sleep around with very little consequence (the main one being - getting pregnant), so the natural hypergamy that is present for good reason, allowed women to sleep with better men with no consequence of pregnancy, although longer term women become bitter at all men, when these 'top' men don't settle down and keep sleeping with young women. So many other reasons.
@@spring-heeledjack3340 Yeah, dwindling birthrates is not something you can balme immigrants for. They happen to countries which do not take on half a million Middle Easterns a year too. I mean Russia has got hermetic borders but invades other states to steal their kids, literally.
If that's the case, how come south Asian families keep their extended families intact in the UK and do better for it on the whole? I agree there is a cultural attack on the family in the west. But I think it comes from middle class intellectuals somewhat dictating from their bubble. When immigration is done well, (slow paced with an infrastructure to support it) societies benefit and become less racist. When immigration is done at a high/fast rate for employers to make the biggest profits taken to offshore accounts and screw the community. Then this creates devides and resentment that's pulls communities apart.
I was particularly interested in her discussion of the 'lying in' period as 'the village' taking care of the new mother and baby for 30-40 days. I have friends who are deeply religious Americans who have a 'village' - they don't live in a village, but their church is a village. For example, they away one weekend and their son's wife died suddenly. They rushed back but about a 6 hours drive and in the meantime their church village rushed over to the house to help so their son wasn't alone. Anytime any member of this church 'village' needs help, they all pitch in. This took me back to early parts of this interview where they discussed that religious people have more children.
When women got the chance to choose, they had fewer children. Climate change and stuff like that isn't the main reason, it's that it's so difficult to create a happy, well functioning family. I had four children.
You should get five votes. I firmly believe we need to start privileging parents. I am not a parent, but the hedonistic, short-term stupidity of modern societies needs to be tempered by better citizens with intergenerational skin in the game.
Completely agree as I have had a career simply due to not being able to conceive or bare children, I never felt fulfilled until my step daughter came into my life at age 9, she's now 18 and at uni living a good life, which makes me feel it was all worth it ❤️ Also to add my niece is Malaysian and her aunt came from Malaysia and lived and cared for her during the first month or so once my great nephew was born, I must my great nephew is such a very calm baby x
some people (like me) didn't want the lifestyle of children and there is nothing wrong with that. and many 80 year olds can't depend on their children either so that is naive.
I have worked in care, and when you are old it’s far better to have someone who can advocate for you. Take care with your decision on not having children. Someone has given birth to you since the Dawn of time. Lifestyle wears thin in time. I mean this kindly.
totally agree. My neighbour who's an 84 year widow, her children live in Japan/Kenya. Having children/grandchildren clearly did not secure a family lifestyle in her golden years. The same outcome is looking likely for my mother of 4 children, who all married international spouses.
Say it louder for the close minded people who think there’s only one way a woman should live. It’s as if we aren’t even human when they start getting on like this. Unbelievable arrogance.
Then do not have children and not everyone is called to marriage and parenthood, but this sort of conversation needs to be had. I agree with Louise Perry for more religious reasons, but our conclusions/thoughts do align.
